Germany To Grant Privacy At the Workplace

An anonymous reader writes "The German government is proposing a bill declaring that employees have an expectation of privacy at the workplace (translated article). Among other provisions, the bill would ban employers from surveilling their employees by cameras or logging and reading their emails. Also, potential employers would not be allowed to view an applicant's profile at Facebook or any other social network that hasn't actually been made for this purpose."

Comments

Their equipment, their choice.

[SudoGhost]

That would be like me saying I can't put a GPS on my car to keep tabs on where it goes when my son drives it. If you're on facebook at work when you should be working, I think the employer has a right to know about it. Also, no cameras? So they can't utilize technology, but they're still allowed to stand behind you and watch you work, right? The only difference between the two is the technology behind the first one.

Re:Their equipment, their choice.

[SudoGhost]

Read the title of the post you replied to. It's THEIR computers. The equipment belongs to them. Me monitoring my computer is completely different than me monitoring your computer. Therefore...I don't see what you're getting at with you're sarcasm.

Re:Their equipment, their choice.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany "LAW states you cannot go over the limit." in this case limit being you can't spy on employees. You will still know who is doing their jobs because they will get shit done while the others post stupid messages on slashdot. You most likely can still forbid them from using facebook, you just can't spy on them.

Re:Their equipment, their choice.

[xnpu]

How about we judge you on your performance instead? E.g. customer retention, sales, or whatever is suitable for your role. I wouldn't care if my top sales guy is on facebook all day, he would still be my top sales guy.

Re:Their equipment, their choice.

[Tom]

I pay for the internet connection, electricity, desk, and even for the time you are there, supposed to be working. And I can't check on you ? Does that strike anyone else as utterly ridiculous ?

No, it doesn't. Your mental model isn't of employment, it's of slavery.

I read TFA in the original language, not the crappy translation. We are talking about things like cameras in the toilets here. Yes, you definitely can't check on me there.

And, quite frankly, it says a lot about the control freaks in management that they need to have it spelt out in a law that what I do in my private life after hours is something we used to call "private". Yes, even if I post it on Facebook for all to see. It is private in the sense that as long as my work is according to contract, it is none of your fucking business. I sold myself to you for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, if you want to have anything to do with the other 16 hours and the other 2 days, we need to renegotiate my contract including pay.

Re:Their equipment, their choice.

[Doc Ruby]

Your employee isn't your son. Children have severely curtailed rights under the supervision of their parents.

You are arguing that corporations are parents of workers who are children without rights.

Re:Their equipment, their choice.

[Tom]

Fortunately, here in Germany you can't just fire someone like that, either. :)

You see, our laws work to protect the citizens, not just the corporations. You see, your "rights" as a corporation only exist because the laws of the land grant them to you. Your desire to ignore the (other) laws of the land is a little... stupid.

As I said: Your mental model is closer to slavery than to a contractual relationship between adult citizens.

Re:Their equipment, their choice.

[Dhalka226]

I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree.

What a law like this is, more than anything, is a recognition of the inherently unequal balance of power in a (potential) employer-employee relationship. Here in the US we tend to pretend that it's a mostly equal relationship and that all of this sort of thing is properly evaluated as part of the proffered salary. Some people really are studly enough that they can demand and receive anything they want from any employer they want, but the vast majority of the world isn't. In fact I'd be willing to bet the majority of workers simply feel lucky to have a job at all.

That being the case, if this law is worth passing then it's because privacy is worth protecting. Creating a law demanding respect for an employee's privacy and simultaneously writing in a loophole that almost any company would be able to exploit to completely ignore it has no value. They may as well not write the law; it's not helping anybody.

Re:Not Their Choice

[Jedi Alec]

So, in order to protect the rights of the employed citizens, we must trample on the rights of the employing citizens.

Sorry, but if you think it is a *right* to read my e-mail or point a camera at me just because I happen to work for you...you've got bigger issues.

Yes, but...cut your employees some slack!

[bradley13]

You are technically correct. However, "slack" is important.

If you are constantly under surveillance by the government, you are living in a police state. This does not make for good living.

It's no different at work. If you are constantly under surveillance, you are in a sweatshop, which does not make for a good working environment. Such working conditions are unacceptable.

If you cannot trust your employees to get their work done, then you either need to train them or fire them. If they get their work done, then it should not matter if they spend a bit of time dealing with personal matters while in the office.